Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 861	control, N = 431	treatment, N = 431	p-value2
age	86	50.40 ± 13.00 (25 - 74)	50.29 ± 13.29 (25 - 74)	50.51 ± 12.87 (28 - 73)	0.936
gender	86				0.476
f		61 (71%)	29 (67%)	32 (74%)
m		25 (29%)	14 (33%)	11 (26%)
occupation	86				0.902
day_training		2 (2.3%)	2 (4.7%)	0 (0%)
full_time		10 (12%)	5 (12%)	5 (12%)
homemaker		6 (7.0%)	3 (7.0%)	3 (7.0%)
other		2 (2.3%)	0 (0%)	2 (4.7%)
part_time		15 (17%)	7 (16%)	8 (19%)
retired		21 (24%)	10 (23%)	11 (26%)
self_employ		4 (4.7%)	2 (4.7%)	2 (4.7%)
student		1 (1.2%)	0 (0%)	1 (2.3%)
t_and_e		2 (2.3%)	1 (2.3%)	1 (2.3%)
unemploy		23 (27%)	13 (30%)	10 (23%)
marital	86				0.686
cohabitation		1 (1.2%)	0 (0%)	1 (2.3%)
divore		10 (12%)	7 (16%)	3 (7.0%)
in_relationship		1 (1.2%)	1 (2.3%)	0 (0%)
married		22 (26%)	10 (23%)	12 (28%)
none		46 (53%)	22 (51%)	24 (56%)
seperation		3 (3.5%)	2 (4.7%)	1 (2.3%)
widow		3 (3.5%)	1 (2.3%)	2 (4.7%)
edu	86				0.789
bachelor		25 (29%)	9 (21%)	16 (37%)
diploma		18 (21%)	11 (26%)	7 (16%)
hd_ad		3 (3.5%)	2 (4.7%)	1 (2.3%)
postgraduate		7 (8.1%)	4 (9.3%)	3 (7.0%)
primary		5 (5.8%)	2 (4.7%)	3 (7.0%)
secondary_1_3		10 (12%)	6 (14%)	4 (9.3%)
secondary_4_5		16 (19%)	8 (19%)	8 (19%)
secondary_6_7		2 (2.3%)	1 (2.3%)	1 (2.3%)
fam_income	86				0.890
10001_12000		4 (4.7%)	1 (2.3%)	3 (7.0%)
12001_14000		5 (5.8%)	2 (4.7%)	3 (7.0%)
14001_16000		5 (5.8%)	2 (4.7%)	3 (7.0%)
16001_18000		3 (3.5%)	1 (2.3%)	2 (4.7%)
18001_20000		4 (4.7%)	3 (7.0%)	1 (2.3%)
20001_above		14 (16%)	7 (16%)	7 (16%)
2001_4000		13 (15%)	9 (21%)	4 (9.3%)
4001_6000		10 (12%)	4 (9.3%)	6 (14%)
6001_8000		9 (10%)	5 (12%)	4 (9.3%)
8001_10000		7 (8.1%)	3 (7.0%)	4 (9.3%)
below_2000		12 (14%)	6 (14%)	6 (14%)
medication	86	76 (88%)	39 (91%)	37 (86%)	0.501
onset_duration	86	15.31 ± 10.90 (0 - 56)	16.65 ± 12.05 (1 - 56)	13.97 ± 9.56 (0 - 35)	0.255
onset_age	86	35.09 ± 14.00 (14 - 64)	33.63 ± 12.83 (14 - 58)	36.55 ± 15.09 (15 - 64)	0.337
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 861	control, N = 431	treatment, N = 431	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	86	3.07 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)	3.09 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)	3.05 ± 1.17 (1 - 5)	0.858
recovery_stage_b	86	18.03 ± 2.64 (9 - 23)	17.86 ± 2.77 (9 - 23)	18.21 ± 2.53 (13 - 23)	0.543
ras_confidence	86	30.17 ± 4.73 (19 - 43)	29.63 ± 4.29 (19 - 40)	30.72 ± 5.12 (20 - 43)	0.286
ras_willingness	86	12.23 ± 1.94 (7 - 15)	12.07 ± 1.87 (9 - 15)	12.40 ± 2.01 (7 - 15)	0.439
ras_goal	86	17.63 ± 2.86 (12 - 24)	17.49 ± 2.81 (12 - 24)	17.77 ± 2.93 (12 - 24)	0.653
ras_reliance	86	13.09 ± 2.80 (8 - 20)	12.98 ± 2.61 (8 - 18)	13.21 ± 3.00 (8 - 20)	0.702
ras_domination	86	9.93 ± 2.33 (3 - 15)	10.42 ± 2.27 (3 - 15)	9.44 ± 2.30 (3 - 14)	0.051
symptom	86	30.36 ± 9.77 (14 - 56)	31.95 ± 9.92 (14 - 55)	28.77 ± 9.47 (15 - 56)	0.131
slof_work	86	22.85 ± 4.85 (10 - 30)	22.53 ± 4.46 (13 - 30)	23.16 ± 5.25 (10 - 30)	0.552
slof_relationship	86	25.85 ± 5.89 (11 - 35)	25.12 ± 5.96 (13 - 35)	26.58 ± 5.80 (11 - 35)	0.251
satisfaction	86	20.60 ± 6.70 (5 - 32)	18.86 ± 6.49 (5 - 29)	22.35 ± 6.53 (5 - 32)	0.015
mhc_emotional	86	11.20 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)	10.67 ± 3.47 (3 - 17)	11.72 ± 3.98 (4 - 18)	0.197
mhc_social	86	15.06 ± 5.24 (6 - 30)	15.14 ± 5.25 (7 - 30)	14.98 ± 5.28 (6 - 26)	0.886
mhc_psychological	86	22.15 ± 5.86 (6 - 36)	21.56 ± 5.43 (10 - 36)	22.74 ± 6.26 (6 - 36)	0.351
resilisnce	86	16.65 ± 4.47 (6 - 27)	16.28 ± 4.16 (6 - 24)	17.02 ± 4.78 (7 - 27)	0.444
social_provision	86	13.72 ± 2.84 (5 - 20)	13.26 ± 2.35 (8 - 20)	14.19 ± 3.22 (5 - 20)	0.130
els_value_living	86	17.15 ± 2.90 (5 - 25)	16.51 ± 2.36 (12 - 22)	17.79 ± 3.26 (5 - 25)	0.040
els_life_fulfill	86	12.66 ± 3.27 (4 - 20)	11.53 ± 3.05 (5 - 17)	13.79 ± 3.12 (4 - 20)	0.001
els	86	29.81 ± 5.58 (9 - 45)	28.05 ± 4.59 (18 - 36)	31.58 ± 5.96 (9 - 45)	0.003
social_connect	86	26.87 ± 9.17 (8 - 48)	27.84 ± 8.23 (8 - 45)	25.91 ± 10.02 (8 - 48)	0.332
shs_agency	86	14.62 ± 4.76 (3 - 24)	13.74 ± 4.32 (3 - 21)	15.49 ± 5.06 (3 - 24)	0.089
shs_pathway	86	16.58 ± 3.88 (4 - 24)	16.02 ± 3.71 (8 - 24)	17.14 ± 4.01 (4 - 23)	0.184
shs	86	31.20 ± 8.17 (7 - 47)	29.77 ± 7.66 (13 - 45)	32.63 ± 8.51 (7 - 47)	0.105
esteem	86	12.69 ± 1.52 (10 - 18)	12.93 ± 1.58 (10 - 18)	12.44 ± 1.44 (10 - 16)	0.137
mlq_search	86	15.02 ± 3.23 (3 - 21)	14.86 ± 3.07 (6 - 21)	15.19 ± 3.42 (3 - 21)	0.643
mlq_presence	86	13.57 ± 4.09 (3 - 21)	13.33 ± 3.68 (5 - 21)	13.81 ± 4.49 (3 - 21)	0.583
mlq	86	28.59 ± 6.51 (6 - 42)	28.19 ± 5.86 (12 - 40)	29.00 ± 7.14 (6 - 42)	0.565
empower	86	19.44 ± 4.03 (6 - 28)	18.95 ± 3.48 (11 - 24)	19.93 ± 4.51 (6 - 28)	0.264
ismi_resistance	86	14.78 ± 2.59 (5 - 20)	14.42 ± 2.17 (11 - 19)	15.14 ± 2.93 (5 - 20)	0.199
ismi_discrimation	86	11.44 ± 3.13 (5 - 19)	12.42 ± 2.85 (5 - 19)	10.47 ± 3.12 (5 - 19)	0.003
sss_affective	86	10.03 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)	10.56 ± 3.54 (3 - 18)	9.51 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)	0.194
sss_behavior	86	9.67 ± 3.96 (3 - 18)	10.40 ± 4.07 (3 - 18)	8.95 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)	0.091
sss_cognitive	86	8.26 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)	8.65 ± 3.96 (3 - 18)	7.86 ± 3.56 (3 - 18)	0.333
sss	86	27.97 ± 10.62 (9 - 54)	29.60 ± 10.50 (9 - 54)	26.33 ± 10.60 (9 - 54)	0.153
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.09	0.180	2.74, 3.45
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.047	0.255	-0.545, 0.452	0.855
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.222	0.267	-0.300, 0.745	0.407
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.250	0.377	-0.489, 0.990	0.510
	Pseudo R square	0.022
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	17.9	0.418	17.0, 18.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.349	0.592	-0.811, 1.51	0.557
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.341	0.582	-1.48, 0.800	0.560
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.962	0.823	-0.652, 2.58	0.247
	Pseudo R square	0.023
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	29.6	0.753	28.2, 31.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.09	1.065	-0.994, 3.18	0.307
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.309	0.802	-1.26, 1.88	0.702
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.16	1.134	-1.06, 3.39	0.310
	Pseudo R square	0.033
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	12.1	0.302	11.5, 12.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.326	0.427	-0.512, 1.16	0.448
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.706	0.297	-1.29, -0.124	0.021
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.792	0.420	-0.032, 1.61	0.065
	Pseudo R square	0.037
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.5	0.462	16.6, 18.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.279	0.653	-1.00, 1.56	0.670
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.955	0.520	-1.97, 0.063	0.071
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.84	0.735	0.401, 3.28	0.015
	Pseudo R square	0.043
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.0	0.418	12.2, 13.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.233	0.591	-0.925, 1.39	0.695
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.475	0.412	-0.333, 1.28	0.254
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.853	0.583	-0.290, 2.00	0.149
	Pseudo R square	0.038
ras_domination	(Intercept)	10.4	0.345	9.74, 11.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.977	0.488	-1.93, -0.019	0.048
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.572	0.449	-1.45, 0.307	0.208
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.70	0.634	0.456, 2.94	0.010
	Pseudo R square	0.041
symptom	(Intercept)	32.0	1.483	29.0, 34.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-3.19	2.097	-7.30, 0.925	0.132
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.176	1.166	-2.11, 2.46	0.881
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.72	1.650	-4.96, 1.51	0.301
	Pseudo R square	0.040
slof_work	(Intercept)	22.5	0.744	21.1, 24.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.628	1.053	-1.43, 2.69	0.552
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.801	0.616	-2.01, 0.407	0.200
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.183	0.871	-1.52, 1.89	0.835
	Pseudo R square	0.010
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	25.1	0.887	23.4, 26.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.47	1.254	-0.992, 3.92	0.246
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.972	0.863	-2.66, 0.720	0.266
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.20	1.221	-1.19, 3.60	0.329
	Pseudo R square	0.029
satisfaction	(Intercept)	18.9	1.035	16.8, 20.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	3.49	1.463	0.620, 6.36	0.019
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.791	1.199	-1.56, 3.14	0.512
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.140	1.696	-3.46, 3.18	0.935
	Pseudo R square	0.063
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	10.7	0.569	9.56, 11.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.05	0.804	-0.530, 2.62	0.196
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.234	0.534	-0.813, 1.28	0.663
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.392	0.756	-1.87, 1.09	0.606
	Pseudo R square	0.015
mhc_social	(Intercept)	15.1	0.837	13.5, 16.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.163	1.184	-2.48, 2.16	0.891
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.02	0.924	-0.790, 2.83	0.274
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.823	1.307	-3.38, 1.74	0.531
	Pseudo R square	0.006
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.6	0.952	19.7, 23.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.19	1.347	-1.45, 3.83	0.381
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.708	1.000	-1.25, 2.67	0.482
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.389	1.415	-3.16, 2.38	0.784
	Pseudo R square	0.009
resilisnce	(Intercept)	16.3	0.673	15.0, 17.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.744	0.951	-1.12, 2.61	0.436
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.050	0.720	-1.46, 1.36	0.945
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.25	1.019	-0.752, 3.24	0.227
	Pseudo R square	0.026
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.3	0.441	12.4, 14.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.930	0.624	-0.293, 2.15	0.139
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.782	0.527	-1.81, 0.250	0.143
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.921	0.745	-0.539, 2.38	0.221
	Pseudo R square	0.053
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.5	0.455	15.6, 17.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.28	0.643	0.019, 2.54	0.049
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.058	0.480	-0.883, 0.999	0.904
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.392	0.679	-0.939, 1.72	0.566
	Pseudo R square	0.056
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	11.5	0.464	10.6, 12.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.26	0.657	0.968, 3.54	0.001
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.917	0.466	0.005, 1.83	0.054
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.590	0.659	-1.88, 0.700	0.374
	Pseudo R square	0.112
els	(Intercept)	28.0	0.833	26.4, 29.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	3.53	1.178	1.23, 5.84	0.003
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.937	0.800	-0.631, 2.51	0.247
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.140	1.131	-2.36, 2.08	0.902
	Pseudo R square	0.098
social_connect	(Intercept)	27.8	1.421	25.1, 30.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.93	2.010	-5.87, 2.01	0.339
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.426	1.195	-1.92, 2.77	0.723
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.78	1.690	-5.09, 1.53	0.297
	Pseudo R square	0.021
shs_agency	(Intercept)	13.7	0.734	12.3, 15.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.74	1.038	-0.290, 3.78	0.096
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.075	0.758	-1.41, 1.56	0.921
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.547	1.072	-1.55, 2.65	0.612
	Pseudo R square	0.041
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	16.0	0.589	14.9, 17.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.12	0.833	-0.516, 2.75	0.183
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.106	0.596	-1.06, 1.27	0.860
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.188	0.842	-1.84, 1.46	0.825
	Pseudo R square	0.018
shs	(Intercept)	29.8	1.246	27.3, 32.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.86	1.763	-0.595, 6.32	0.108
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.185	1.240	-2.25, 2.61	0.882
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.370	1.753	-3.07, 3.81	0.834
	Pseudo R square	0.033
esteem	(Intercept)	12.9	0.214	12.5, 13.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.488	0.303	-1.08, 0.106	0.110
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.008	0.319	-0.616, 0.632	0.980
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.317	0.450	-0.566, 1.20	0.486
	Pseudo R square	0.024
mlq_search	(Intercept)	14.9	0.497	13.9, 15.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.326	0.703	-1.05, 1.70	0.644
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.386	0.583	-1.53, 0.757	0.511
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.016	0.825	-1.60, 1.63	0.985
	Pseudo R square	0.006
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	13.3	0.624	12.1, 14.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.488	0.883	-1.24, 2.22	0.581
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.084	0.707	-1.47, 1.30	0.906
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.083	0.999	-1.88, 2.04	0.934
	Pseudo R square	0.004
mlq	(Intercept)	28.2	1.007	26.2, 30.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.814	1.425	-1.98, 3.61	0.569
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.476	1.142	-2.71, 1.76	0.679
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.105	1.615	-3.06, 3.27	0.948
	Pseudo R square	0.005
empower	(Intercept)	19.0	0.623	17.7, 20.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.977	0.881	-0.750, 2.70	0.270
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.109	0.572	-1.01, 1.23	0.850
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.469	0.808	-2.05, 1.12	0.564
	Pseudo R square	0.011
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	14.4	0.382	13.7, 15.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.721	0.540	-0.338, 1.78	0.185
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.034	0.509	-0.962, 1.03	0.946
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.053	0.719	-1.36, 1.46	0.942
	Pseudo R square	0.022
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	12.4	0.469	11.5, 13.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.95	0.664	-3.25, -0.652	0.004
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.624	0.491	-1.59, 0.338	0.209
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.848	0.694	-0.513, 2.21	0.228
	Pseudo R square	0.073
sss_affective	(Intercept)	10.6	0.551	9.48, 11.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.05	0.779	-2.57, 0.480	0.182
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.062	0.524	-0.965, 1.09	0.906
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.15	0.741	-2.60, 0.303	0.127
	Pseudo R square	0.048
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	10.4	0.579	9.26, 11.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.44	0.819	-3.05, 0.164	0.081
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.224	0.602	-1.40, 0.956	0.712
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.539	0.851	-2.21, 1.13	0.530
	Pseudo R square	0.049
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	8.65	0.569	7.54, 9.77
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.791	0.805	-2.37, 0.787	0.329
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.998	0.507	0.005, 1.99	0.055
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.88	0.717	-3.28, -0.470	0.012
	Pseudo R square	0.050
sss	(Intercept)	29.6	1.584	26.5, 32.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-3.28	2.240	-7.67, 1.11	0.147
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.919	1.379	-1.78, 3.62	0.508
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-3.61	1.950	-7.43, 0.213	0.070
	Pseudo R square	0.054
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.09 (95% CI [2.74, 3.45], t(126) = 17.19, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.45], t(126) = -0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.38])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.75], t(126) = 0.83, p = 0.404; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.63])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.99], t(126) = 0.66, p = 0.507; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.83])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.86 (95% CI [17.04, 18.68], t(126) = 42.69, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.51], t(126) = 0.59, p = 0.555; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.55])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.48, 0.80], t(126) = -0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.65, 2.58], t(126) = 1.17, p = 0.243; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.94])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.63 (95% CI [28.15, 31.10], t(126) = 39.34, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.99, 3.18], t(126) = 1.03, p = 0.305; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.64])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.88], t(126) = 0.38, p = 0.700; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.38])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [-1.06, 3.39], t(126) = 1.02, p = 0.306; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.68])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.07 (95% CI [11.48, 12.66], t(126) = 39.96, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.16], t(126) = 0.76, p = 0.446; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.58])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-1.29, -0.12], t(126) = -2.38, p = 0.017; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.65, -0.06])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.61], t(126) = 1.88, p = 0.059; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.81])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.49 (95% CI [16.58, 18.39], t(126) = 37.88, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.56], t(126) = 0.43, p = 0.669; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.50])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.96, 95% CI [-1.97, 0.06], t(126) = -1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.02])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.84, 95% CI [0.40, 3.28], t(126) = 2.51, p = 0.012; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [0.13, 1.06])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.98 (95% CI [12.16, 13.80], t(126) = 31.07, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.39], t(126) = 0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.49])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.28], t(126) = 1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.45])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.29, 2.00], t(126) = 1.46, p = 0.143; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.70])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.42 (95% CI [9.74, 11.10], t(126) = 30.17, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-1.93, -0.02], t(126) = -2.00, p = 0.046; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.85, -8.58e-03])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.45, 0.31], t(126) = -1.27, p = 0.202; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.14])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [0.46, 2.94], t(126) = 2.68, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.75, 95% CI [0.20, 1.30])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.95 (95% CI [29.05, 34.86], t(126) = 21.55, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.19, 95% CI [-7.30, 0.92], t(126) = -1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.09])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-2.11, 2.46], t(126) = 0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.72, 95% CI [-4.96, 1.51], t(126) = -1.05, p = 0.296; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.15])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.87e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.53 (95% CI [21.08, 23.99], t(126) = 30.28, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.69], t(126) = 0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.56])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.80, 95% CI [-2.01, 0.41], t(126) = -1.30, p = 0.194; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.08])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.52, 1.89], t(126) = 0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.39])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.12 (95% CI [23.38, 26.85], t(126) = 28.33, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-0.99, 3.92], t(126) = 1.17, p = 0.243; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.68])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.97, 95% CI [-2.66, 0.72], t(126) = -1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.13])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [-1.19, 3.60], t(126) = 0.98, p = 0.325; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.63])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.86 (95% CI [16.83, 20.89], t(126) = 18.23, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.49, 95% CI [0.62, 6.36], t(126) = 2.38, p = 0.017; Std. beta = 0.50, 95% CI [0.09, 0.91])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-1.56, 3.14], t(126) = 0.66, p = 0.509; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.45])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-3.46, 3.18], t(126) = -0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.46])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.67 (95% CI [9.56, 11.79], t(126) = 18.77, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.62], t(126) = 1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.71])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.28], t(126) = 0.44, p = 0.662; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.35])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.87, 1.09], t(126) = -0.52, p = 0.604; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.29])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.76e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.14 (95% CI [13.50, 16.78], t(126) = 18.09, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-2.48, 2.16], t(126) = -0.14, p = 0.891; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.40])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.79, 2.83], t(126) = 1.10, p = 0.269; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.52])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.82, 95% CI [-3.38, 1.74], t(126) = -0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.32])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.56 (95% CI [19.69, 23.42], t(126) = 22.64, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-1.45, 3.83], t(126) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.61])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-1.25, 2.67], t(126) = 0.71, p = 0.479; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.42])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-3.16, 2.38], t(126) = -0.28, p = 0.783; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.38])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.28 (95% CI [14.96, 17.60], t(126) = 24.20, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.12, 2.61], t(126) = 0.78, p = 0.434; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.59])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.46, 1.36], t(126) = -0.07, p = 0.945; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.25, 95% CI [-0.75, 3.24], t(126) = 1.22, p = 0.222; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.73])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.26 (95% CI [12.39, 14.12], t(126) = 30.05, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.29, 2.15], t(126) = 1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.73])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-1.81, 0.25], t(126) = -1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.08])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.54, 2.38], t(126) = 1.24, p = 0.216; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.80])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.51 (95% CI [15.62, 17.40], t(126) = 36.32, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [0.02, 2.54], t(126) = 1.99, p = 0.047; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [6.16e-03, 0.83])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.00], t(126) = 0.12, p = 0.904; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.33])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.72], t(126) = 0.58, p = 0.564; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.56])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.11. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.53 (95% CI [10.62, 12.45], t(126) = 24.83, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.26, 95% CI [0.97, 3.54], t(126) = 3.43, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.70, 95% CI [0.30, 1.10])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [4.66e-03, 1.83], t(126) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [1.45e-03, 0.57])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.88, 0.70], t(126) = -0.90, p = 0.370; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.22])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.05 (95% CI [26.41, 29.68], t(126) = 33.67, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.53, 95% CI [1.23, 5.84], t(126) = 3.00, p = 0.003; Std. beta = 0.62, 95% CI [0.21, 1.02])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.51], t(126) = 1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.44])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-2.36, 2.08], t(126) = -0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.36])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.84 (95% CI [25.05, 30.62], t(126) = 19.59, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.93, 95% CI [-5.87, 2.01], t(126) = -0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.21])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-1.92, 2.77], t(126) = 0.36, p = 0.722; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.78, 95% CI [-5.09, 1.53], t(126) = -1.05, p = 0.292; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.16])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.74 (95% CI [12.31, 15.18], t(126) = 18.73, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.74, 95% CI [-0.29, 3.78], t(126) = 1.68, p = 0.093; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.78])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.41, 1.56], t(126) = 0.10, p = 0.921; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.55, 2.65], t(126) = 0.51, p = 0.610; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.54])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.02 (95% CI [14.87, 17.18], t(126) = 27.21, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-0.52, 2.75], t(126) = 1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.71])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.27], t(126) = 0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.33])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.84, 1.46], t(126) = -0.22, p = 0.824; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.38])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.77 (95% CI [27.32, 32.21], t(126) = 23.88, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.86, 95% CI [-0.59, 6.32], t(126) = 1.62, p = 0.105; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.77])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-2.25, 2.61], t(126) = 0.15, p = 0.882; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-3.07, 3.81], t(126) = 0.21, p = 0.833; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.46])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.93 (95% CI [12.51, 13.35], t(126) = 60.32, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.11], t(126) = -1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.08])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 8.15e-03, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.63], t(126) = 0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = 5.85e-03, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.45])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.20], t(126) = 0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.86])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.65e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.86 (95% CI [13.89, 15.83], t(126) = 29.91, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-1.05, 1.70], t(126) = 0.46, p = 0.643; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.52])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.53, 0.76], t(126) = -0.66, p = 0.508; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.60, 1.63], t(126) = 0.02, p = 0.985; Std. beta = 4.79e-03, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.50])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.33 (95% CI [12.10, 14.55], t(126) = 21.35, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.24, 2.22], t(126) = 0.55, p = 0.580; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.55])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.47, 1.30], t(126) = -0.12, p = 0.906; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.88, 2.04], t(126) = 0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.50])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.10e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.19 (95% CI [26.21, 30.16], t(126) = 27.98, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.98, 3.61], t(126) = 0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.55])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-2.71, 1.76], t(126) = -0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-3.06, 3.27], t(126) = 0.07, p = 0.948; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.50])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.95 (95% CI [17.73, 20.17], t(126) = 30.42, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.75, 2.70], t(126) = 1.11, p = 0.268; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.65])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.23], t(126) = 0.19, p = 0.849; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-2.05, 1.12], t(126) = -0.58, p = 0.562; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.27])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.67, 15.17], t(126) = 37.73, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.78], t(126) = 1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.71])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.03], t(126) = 0.07, p = 0.946; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.41])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-1.36, 1.46], t(126) = 0.07, p = 0.941; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.58])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.42 (95% CI [11.50, 13.34], t(126) = 26.46, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.95, 95% CI [-3.25, -0.65], t(126) = -2.94, p = 0.003; Std. beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.03, -0.21])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.34], t(126) = -1.27, p = 0.204; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.11])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.21], t(126) = 1.22, p = 0.222; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.70])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.56 (95% CI [9.48, 11.64], t(126) = 19.17, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-2.57, 0.48], t(126) = -1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.13])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.09], t(126) = 0.12, p = 0.905; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.15, 95% CI [-2.60, 0.30], t(126) = -1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.08])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.26, 11.53], t(126) = 17.94, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.44, 95% CI [-3.05, 0.16], t(126) = -1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.04])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.96], t(126) = -0.37, p = 0.710; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-2.21, 1.13], t(126) = -0.63, p = 0.527; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.29])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.65 (95% CI [7.54, 9.77], t(126) = 15.20, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-2.37, 0.79], t(126) = -0.98, p = 0.326; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.21])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [4.52e-03, 1.99], t(126) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [1.21e-03, 0.53])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.88, 95% CI [-3.28, -0.47], t(126) = -2.62, p = 0.009; Std. beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-0.88, -0.13])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.60 (95% CI [26.50, 32.71], t(126) = 18.69, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.28, 95% CI [-7.67, 1.11], t(126) = -1.46, p = 0.143; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.11])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-1.78, 3.62], t(126) = 0.67, p = 0.505; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.61, 95% CI [-7.43, 0.21], t(126) = -1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.02])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	419.887	428.536	-206.944	413.887
recovery_stage_a	random	6	421.998	439.294	-204.999	409.998	3.890	3	0.274
recovery_stage_b	null	3	638.041	646.689	-316.020	632.041
recovery_stage_b	random	6	641.065	658.362	-314.533	629.065	2.975	3	0.395
ras_confidence	null	3	776.116	784.764	-385.058	770.116
ras_confidence	random	6	776.575	793.872	-382.288	764.575	5.541	3	0.136
ras_willingness	null	3	530.212	538.861	-262.106	524.212
ras_willingness	random	6	528.830	546.126	-258.415	516.830	7.383	3	0.061
ras_goal	null	3	653.750	662.398	-323.875	647.750
ras_goal	random	6	651.809	669.106	-319.905	639.809	7.941	3	0.047
ras_reliance	null	3	620.776	629.424	-307.388	614.776
ras_reliance	random	6	614.743	632.040	-301.372	602.743	12.033	3	0.007
ras_domination	null	3	588.467	597.115	-291.234	582.467
ras_domination	random	6	585.844	603.140	-286.922	573.844	8.623	3	0.035
symptom	null	3	928.954	937.602	-461.477	922.954
symptom	random	6	929.915	947.211	-458.957	917.915	5.039	3	0.169
slof_work	null	3	749.477	758.125	-371.738	743.477
slof_work	random	6	752.304	769.601	-370.152	740.304	3.172	3	0.366
slof_relationship	null	3	809.953	818.601	-401.976	803.953
slof_relationship	random	6	812.317	829.613	-400.158	800.317	3.636	3	0.304
satisfaction	null	3	868.078	876.727	-431.039	862.078
satisfaction	random	6	867.110	884.407	-427.555	855.110	6.968	3	0.073
mhc_emotional	null	3	687.890	696.538	-340.945	681.890
mhc_emotional	random	6	692.124	709.421	-340.062	680.124	1.766	3	0.622
mhc_social	null	3	802.767	811.415	-398.383	796.767
mhc_social	random	6	807.332	824.629	-397.666	795.332	1.434	3	0.698
mhc_psychological	null	3	832.751	841.400	-413.376	826.751
mhc_psychological	random	6	837.415	854.712	-412.707	825.415	1.337	3	0.720
resilisnce	null	3	745.509	754.158	-369.755	739.509
resilisnce	random	6	747.211	764.508	-367.605	735.211	4.298	3	0.231
social_provision	null	3	644.888	653.536	-319.444	638.888
social_provision	random	6	644.319	661.615	-316.159	632.319	6.569	3	0.087
els_value_living	null	3	642.785	651.433	-318.392	636.785
els_value_living	random	6	642.685	659.982	-315.343	630.685	6.099	3	0.107
els_life_fulfill	null	3	652.911	661.560	-323.456	646.911
els_life_fulfill	random	6	644.058	661.355	-316.029	632.058	14.853	3	0.002
els	null	3	800.308	808.956	-397.154	794.308
els	random	6	794.681	811.978	-391.341	782.681	11.627	3	0.009
social_connect	null	3	921.458	930.106	-457.729	915.458
social_connect	random	6	924.438	941.735	-456.219	912.438	3.020	3	0.389
shs_agency	null	3	765.618	774.266	-379.809	759.618
shs_agency	random	6	767.194	784.491	-377.597	755.194	4.424	3	0.219
shs_pathway	null	3	703.318	711.966	-348.659	697.318
shs_pathway	random	6	707.462	724.759	-347.731	695.462	1.856	3	0.603
shs	null	3	901.359	910.007	-447.680	895.359
shs	random	6	904.018	921.315	-446.009	892.018	3.341	3	0.342
esteem	null	3	465.508	474.157	-229.754	459.508
esteem	random	6	468.303	485.600	-228.152	456.303	3.205	3	0.361
mlq_search	null	3	669.586	678.235	-331.793	663.586
mlq_search	random	6	674.463	691.760	-331.231	662.463	1.124	3	0.771
mlq_presence	null	3	726.268	734.917	-360.134	720.268
mlq_presence	random	6	731.863	749.159	-359.931	719.863	0.406	3	0.939
mlq	null	3	853.064	861.713	-423.532	847.064
mlq	random	6	858.369	875.666	-423.184	846.369	0.696	3	0.874
empower	null	3	709.613	718.262	-351.807	703.613
empower	random	6	714.162	731.459	-351.081	702.162	1.451	3	0.694
ismi_resistance	null	3	610.532	619.180	-302.266	604.532
ismi_resistance	random	6	614.216	631.513	-301.108	602.216	2.316	3	0.510
ismi_discrimation	null	3	653.319	661.967	-323.659	647.319
ismi_discrimation	random	6	650.312	667.609	-319.156	638.312	9.006	3	0.029
sss_affective	null	3	686.387	695.035	-340.194	680.387
sss_affective	random	6	684.702	701.999	-336.351	672.702	7.685	3	0.053
sss_behavior	null	3	705.268	713.916	-349.634	699.268
sss_behavior	random	6	705.326	722.623	-346.663	693.326	5.942	3	0.114
sss_cognitive	null	3	691.195	699.843	-342.597	685.195
sss_cognitive	random	6	687.835	705.131	-337.917	675.835	9.360	3	0.025
sss	null	3	958.205	966.853	-476.102	952.205
sss	random	6	956.053	973.350	-472.026	944.053	8.152	3	0.043

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	43	3.09 ± 1.18		43	3.05 ± 1.18		0.855	0.047
recovery_stage_a	2nd	23	3.32 ± 1.17	-0.225	23	3.52 ± 1.17	-0.478	0.555	-0.206
recovery_stage_b	1st	43	17.86 ± 2.74		43	18.21 ± 2.74		0.557	-0.164
recovery_stage_b	2nd	23	17.52 ± 2.66	0.160	23	18.83 ± 2.66	-0.292	0.097	-0.616
ras_confidence	1st	43	29.63 ± 4.94		43	30.72 ± 4.94		0.307	-0.386
ras_confidence	2nd	23	29.94 ± 4.41	-0.109	23	32.19 ± 4.41	-0.520	0.085	-0.797
ras_willingness	1st	43	12.07 ± 1.98		43	12.40 ± 1.98		0.448	-0.313
ras_willingness	2nd	23	11.36 ± 1.73	0.678	23	12.48 ± 1.73	-0.082	0.030	-1.073
ras_goal	1st	43	17.49 ± 3.03		43	17.77 ± 3.03		0.670	-0.151
ras_goal	2nd	23	16.53 ± 2.75	0.518	23	18.65 ± 2.75	-0.481	0.010	-1.150
ras_reliance	1st	43	12.98 ± 2.74		43	13.21 ± 2.74		0.695	-0.161
ras_reliance	2nd	23	13.45 ± 2.39	-0.329	23	14.54 ± 2.39	-0.919	0.126	-0.751
ras_domination	1st	43	10.42 ± 2.26		43	9.44 ± 2.26		0.048	0.603
ras_domination	2nd	23	9.85 ± 2.15	0.353	23	10.57 ± 2.15	-0.696	0.256	-0.446
symptom	1st	43	31.95 ± 9.73		43	28.77 ± 9.73		0.132	0.789
symptom	2nd	23	32.13 ± 8.04	-0.044	23	27.22 ± 8.04	0.383	0.040	1.216
slof_work	1st	43	22.53 ± 4.88		43	23.16 ± 4.88		0.552	-0.294
slof_work	2nd	23	21.73 ± 4.08	0.375	23	22.54 ± 4.08	0.289	0.501	-0.379
slof_relationship	1st	43	25.12 ± 5.81		43	26.58 ± 5.81		0.245	-0.484
slof_relationship	2nd	23	24.14 ± 5.06	0.321	23	26.81 ± 5.06	-0.076	0.076	-0.882
satisfaction	1st	43	18.86 ± 6.79		43	22.35 ± 6.79		0.019	-0.817
satisfaction	2nd	23	19.65 ± 6.21	-0.185	23	23.00 ± 6.21	-0.153	0.070	-0.785
mhc_emotional	1st	43	10.67 ± 3.73		43	11.72 ± 3.73		0.196	-0.561
mhc_emotional	2nd	23	10.91 ± 3.21	-0.125	23	11.56 ± 3.21	0.085	0.491	-0.350
mhc_social	1st	43	15.14 ± 5.49		43	14.98 ± 5.49		0.891	0.050
mhc_social	2nd	23	16.16 ± 4.95	-0.312	23	15.17 ± 4.95	-0.060	0.501	0.301
mhc_psychological	1st	43	21.56 ± 6.24		43	22.74 ± 6.24		0.381	-0.336
mhc_psychological	2nd	23	22.27 ± 5.55	-0.201	23	23.06 ± 5.55	-0.090	0.627	-0.226
resilisnce	1st	43	16.28 ± 4.41		43	17.02 ± 4.41		0.436	-0.293
resilisnce	2nd	23	16.23 ± 3.94	0.020	23	18.22 ± 3.94	-0.470	0.089	-0.782
social_provision	1st	43	13.26 ± 2.89		43	14.19 ± 2.89		0.139	-0.495
social_provision	2nd	23	12.47 ± 2.67	0.416	23	14.32 ± 2.67	-0.074	0.020	-0.984
els_value_living	1st	43	16.51 ± 2.98		43	17.79 ± 2.98		0.049	-0.755
els_value_living	2nd	23	16.57 ± 2.65	-0.034	23	18.24 ± 2.65	-0.266	0.035	-0.987
els_life_fulfill	1st	43	11.53 ± 3.05		43	13.79 ± 3.05		0.001	-1.380
els_life_fulfill	2nd	23	12.45 ± 2.67	-0.561	23	14.12 ± 2.67	-0.200	0.036	-1.019
els	1st	43	28.05 ± 5.46		43	31.58 ± 5.46		0.003	-1.262
els	2nd	23	28.98 ± 4.73	-0.335	23	32.38 ± 4.73	-0.285	0.016	-1.212
social_connect	1st	43	27.84 ± 9.32		43	25.91 ± 9.32		0.339	0.465
social_connect	2nd	23	28.26 ± 7.82	-0.103	23	24.55 ± 7.82	0.326	0.110	0.894
shs_agency	1st	43	13.74 ± 4.81		43	15.49 ± 4.81		0.096	-0.654
shs_agency	2nd	23	13.82 ± 4.25	-0.028	23	16.11 ± 4.25	-0.234	0.070	-0.859
shs_pathway	1st	43	16.02 ± 3.86		43	17.14 ± 3.86		0.183	-0.533
shs_pathway	2nd	23	16.13 ± 3.39	-0.050	23	17.06 ± 3.39	0.039	0.355	-0.444
shs	1st	43	29.77 ± 8.17		43	32.63 ± 8.17		0.108	-0.658
shs	2nd	23	29.95 ± 7.15	-0.042	23	33.18 ± 7.15	-0.128	0.128	-0.743
esteem	1st	43	12.93 ± 1.41		43	12.44 ± 1.41		0.110	0.413
esteem	2nd	23	12.94 ± 1.39	-0.007	23	12.77 ± 1.39	-0.275	0.676	0.145
mlq_search	1st	43	14.86 ± 3.26		43	15.19 ± 3.26		0.644	-0.157
mlq_search	2nd	23	14.47 ± 2.99	0.186	23	14.82 ± 2.99	0.178	0.700	-0.164
mlq_presence	1st	43	13.33 ± 4.09		43	13.81 ± 4.09		0.581	-0.195
mlq_presence	2nd	23	13.24 ± 3.72	0.033	23	13.81 ± 3.72	0.000	0.604	-0.228
mlq	1st	43	28.19 ± 6.61		43	29.00 ± 6.61		0.569	-0.201
mlq	2nd	23	27.71 ± 6.01	0.117	23	28.63 ± 6.01	0.091	0.605	-0.227
empower	1st	43	18.95 ± 4.09		43	19.93 ± 4.09		0.270	-0.490
empower	2nd	23	19.06 ± 3.50	-0.054	23	19.57 ± 3.50	0.181	0.623	-0.255
ismi_resistance	1st	43	14.42 ± 2.51		43	15.14 ± 2.51		0.185	-0.391
ismi_resistance	2nd	23	14.45 ± 2.40	-0.019	23	15.23 ± 2.40	-0.047	0.276	-0.420
ismi_discrimation	1st	43	12.42 ± 3.08		43	10.47 ± 3.08		0.004	1.129
ismi_discrimation	2nd	23	11.79 ± 2.73	0.361	23	10.69 ± 2.73	-0.129	0.172	0.639
sss_affective	1st	43	10.56 ± 3.61		43	9.51 ± 3.61		0.182	0.571
sss_affective	2nd	23	10.62 ± 3.12	-0.034	23	8.42 ± 3.12	0.593	0.019	1.198
sss_behavior	1st	43	10.40 ± 3.80		43	8.95 ± 3.80		0.082	0.680
sss_behavior	2nd	23	10.17 ± 3.36	0.105	23	8.19 ± 3.36	0.360	0.048	0.934
sss_cognitive	1st	43	8.65 ± 3.73		43	7.86 ± 3.73		0.329	0.448
sss_cognitive	2nd	23	9.65 ± 3.17	-0.565	23	6.98 ± 3.17	0.497	0.005	1.510
sss	1st	43	29.60 ± 10.39		43	26.33 ± 10.39		0.147	0.684
sss	2nd	23	30.52 ± 8.78	-0.192	23	23.64 ± 8.78	0.561	0.009	1.436

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(120.85) = -0.18, p = 0.855, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.46)

2st

t(127.38) = 0.59, p = 0.555, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.88)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(115.98) = 0.59, p = 0.557, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.52)

2st

t(127.31) = 1.67, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.86)

ras_confidence

1st

t(100.66) = 1.03, p = 0.307, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-1.02 to 3.21)

2st

t(127.88) = 1.74, p = 0.085, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.32 to 4.83)

ras_willingness

1st

t(97.76) = 0.76, p = 0.448, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.17)

2st

t(127.14) = 2.19, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -1.07, 95% CI (0.11 to 2.13)

ras_goal

1st

t(103.06) = 0.43, p = 0.670, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.57)

2st

t(128.00) = 2.62, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -1.15, 95% CI (0.52 to 3.72)

ras_reliance

1st

t(97.88) = 0.39, p = 0.695, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.40)

2st

t(127.19) = 1.54, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-0.31 to 2.48)

ras_domination

1st

t(111.08) = -2.00, p = 0.048, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-1.94 to -0.01)

2st

t(127.51) = 1.14, p = 0.256, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.98)

symptom

1st

t(92.22) = -1.52, p = 0.132, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-7.35 to 0.98)

2st

t(121.39) = -2.07, p = 0.040, Cohen d = 1.22, 95% CI (-9.60 to -0.22)

slof_work

1st

t(93.23) = 0.60, p = 0.552, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.46 to 2.72)

2st

t(123.12) = 0.67, p = 0.501, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.57 to 3.19)

slof_relationship

1st

t(97.44) = 1.17, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.02 to 3.95)

2st

t(127.00) = 1.79, p = 0.076, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (-0.28 to 5.62)

satisfaction

1st

t(104.45) = 2.38, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (0.59 to 6.39)

2st

t(127.97) = 1.83, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.27 to 6.97)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(96.35) = 1.30, p = 0.196, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.55 to 2.64)

2st

t(126.38) = 0.69, p = 0.491, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.22 to 2.53)

mhc_social

1st

t(102.15) = -0.14, p = 0.891, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.51 to 2.19)

2st

t(127.99) = -0.68, p = 0.501, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-3.87 to 1.90)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(100.11) = 0.88, p = 0.381, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.49 to 3.86)

2st

t(127.80) = 0.49, p = 0.627, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-2.44 to 4.03)

resilisnce

1st

t(100.88) = 0.78, p = 0.436, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.14 to 2.63)

2st

t(127.90) = 1.71, p = 0.089, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.31 to 4.29)

social_provision

1st

t(106.00) = 1.49, p = 0.139, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.31 to 2.17)

2st

t(127.88) = 2.35, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (0.29 to 3.41)

els_value_living

1st

t(100.33) = 1.99, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (0.00 to 2.55)

2st

t(127.83) = 2.14, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.99, 95% CI (0.12 to 3.22)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(98.40) = 3.43, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -1.38, 95% CI (0.95 to 3.56)

2st

t(127.38) = 2.12, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -1.02, 95% CI (0.11 to 3.22)

els

1st

t(97.02) = 3.00, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -1.26, 95% CI (1.20 to 5.87)

2st

t(126.78) = 2.43, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -1.21, 95% CI (0.63 to 6.16)

social_connect

1st

t(93.56) = -0.96, p = 0.339, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-5.92 to 2.06)

2st

t(123.61) = -1.61, p = 0.110, Cohen d = 0.89, 95% CI (-8.27 to 0.85)

shs_agency

1st

t(99.46) = 1.68, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.31 to 3.80)

2st

t(127.67) = 1.83, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (-0.19 to 4.77)

shs_pathway

1st

t(98.71) = 1.34, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.77)

2st

t(127.48) = 0.93, p = 0.355, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-1.05 to 2.91)

shs

1st

t(98.14) = 1.62, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.64 to 6.36)

2st

t(127.29) = 1.53, p = 0.128, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-0.94 to 7.40)

esteem

1st

t(121.03) = -1.61, p = 0.110, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.11)

2st

t(127.39) = -0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.64)

mlq_search

1st

t(105.12) = 0.46, p = 0.644, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.72)

2st

t(127.93) = 0.39, p = 0.700, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.09)

mlq_presence

1st

t(103.31) = 0.55, p = 0.581, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.26 to 2.24)

2st

t(128.00) = 0.52, p = 0.604, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.60 to 2.74)

mlq

1st

t(103.38) = 0.57, p = 0.569, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-2.01 to 3.64)

2st

t(128.00) = 0.52, p = 0.605, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-2.58 to 4.42)

empower

1st

t(95.69) = 1.11, p = 0.270, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.73)

2st

t(125.90) = 0.49, p = 0.623, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.53 to 2.55)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(112.74) = 1.33, p = 0.185, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.79)

2st

t(127.41) = 1.10, p = 0.276, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.62 to 2.17)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(99.95) = -2.94, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 1.13, 95% CI (-3.27 to -0.64)

2st

t(127.77) = -1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-2.70 to 0.49)

sss_affective

1st

t(96.74) = -1.34, p = 0.182, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.59 to 0.50)

2st

t(126.63) = -2.39, p = 0.019, Cohen d = 1.20, 95% CI (-4.02 to -0.37)

sss_behavior

1st

t(99.69) = -1.76, p = 0.082, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-3.07 to 0.18)

2st

t(127.72) = -2.00, p = 0.048, Cohen d = 0.93, 95% CI (-3.94 to -0.02)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(94.92) = -0.98, p = 0.329, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-2.39 to 0.81)

2st

t(125.21) = -2.85, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 1.51, 95% CI (-4.52 to -0.81)

sss

1st

t(94.36) = -1.46, p = 0.147, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-7.73 to 1.17)

2st

t(124.62) = -2.66, p = 0.009, Cohen d = 1.44, 95% CI (-12.01 to -1.76)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(64.07) = 1.76, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.01)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(60.54) = 1.06, p = 0.587, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.79)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(51.95) = 1.82, p = 0.148, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.15 to 3.09)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(50.52) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.68)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(53.17) = 1.70, p = 0.191, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.93)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(50.57) = 3.21, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (0.50 to 2.16)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(57.52) = 2.50, p = 0.031, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (0.22 to 2.03)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(47.85) = -1.32, p = 0.384, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-3.90 to 0.80)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(48.33) = -1.00, p = 0.644, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.86 to 0.62)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(50.36) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.97)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(53.89) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.77 to 3.07)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(49.83) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.24 to 0.92)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(52.70) = 0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.66 to 2.06)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(51.68) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.70 to 2.34)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(52.06) = 1.65, p = 0.209, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.26 to 2.65)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(54.70) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.20)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(51.79) = 0.93, p = 0.710, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.42)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(50.83) = 0.70, p = 0.975, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.27)

els

1st vs 2st

t(50.15) = 0.99, p = 0.652, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.82 to 2.41)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(48.49) = -1.13, p = 0.528, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-3.76 to 1.05)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(51.35) = 0.82, p = 0.834, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.90 to 2.15)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(50.98) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.12)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(50.70) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.94 to 3.05)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(64.22) = 1.01, p = 0.630, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.97)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(54.24) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.55 to 0.81)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(53.30) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.43 to 1.42)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(53.34) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.67 to 1.93)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(49.51) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.51 to 0.79)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(58.50) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.11)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(51.60) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.77 to 1.21)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(50.02) = -2.07, p = 0.088, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-2.14 to -0.03)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(51.47) = -1.26, p = 0.426, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.45)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(49.14) = -1.72, p = 0.182, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-1.90 to 0.14)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(48.87) = -1.94, p = 0.115, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-5.47 to 0.09)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(64.07) = 0.83, p = 0.822, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.31 to 0.76)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(60.54) = -0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.51 to 0.83)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(51.95) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.93)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(50.52) = -2.37, p = 0.044, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-1.30 to -0.11)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(53.17) = -1.83, p = 0.146, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-2.00 to 0.09)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(50.57) = 1.15, p = 0.512, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.31)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(57.52) = -1.27, p = 0.421, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.48 to 0.33)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(47.85) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-2.18 to 2.53)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(48.33) = -1.30, p = 0.402, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-2.04 to 0.44)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(50.36) = -1.12, p = 0.535, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.71 to 0.77)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(53.89) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.63 to 3.21)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(49.83) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.31)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(52.70) = 1.10, p = 0.553, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.84 to 2.88)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(51.68) = 0.70, p = 0.969, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.31 to 2.72)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(52.06) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.40)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(54.70) = -1.48, p = 0.291, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.84 to 0.28)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(51.79) = 0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.03)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(50.83) = 1.96, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.86)

els

1st vs 2st

t(50.15) = 1.17, p = 0.498, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.68 to 2.55)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(48.49) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.98 to 2.83)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(51.35) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.45 to 1.60)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(50.98) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.31)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(50.70) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-2.31 to 2.68)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(64.22) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.65)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(54.24) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.79)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(53.30) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.34)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(53.34) = -0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.78 to 1.83)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(49.51) = 0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.26)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(58.50) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.99 to 1.06)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(51.60) = -1.27, p = 0.423, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.61 to 0.37)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(50.02) = 0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.99 to 1.12)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(51.47) = -0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.99)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(49.14) = 1.96, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.02 to 2.02)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(48.87) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.86 to 3.70)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance